VEGETERIANISM.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CIV, Issue 12323, 13 October 1900, Page 3

VEGETERIANISM.

TO THE EDITOR. . Sir,—A little over thirty years ago, I was Us igrioiiant of the principles and object ot 'dietetic refonh as any of your correspon:denta who are trying to condemn vegetarianism, and X was also as prejudiced against ilvßat t knew nothing about as ignorance generally is. About that time I read sevfira ol the .works of some of the men referred ka by E. C. Reynolds id his letter in Saturday's issue. Their reasoning seemed so feasible to me that, in spite of previous bias, I resolved to give vegetarianism a trifll for one year. Living in a house, and fitting at. a table where flesh-meat was used .daily, with a predilection in favour of flesh-eating, it cost me a little self-denial to cany out that resolution, but. before the end of xiiy year of probation I had lost all desire, for animal food, and I had alsogot rid of rheumatism, a disease I inherited, •hd W4s, never free of for twenty,-five 'years ptefidiisiy. If those who are anxious to condemn would take the trouble to inyestijite they might not become vegetarians, dhd if hot they would leave the subject wUrtte. Bixt vegetarianism is not the goal reform; it is only one step in !thif right direction, and we have a long jddriiey before we reach a scientific knowil«dge v of a natural diet. But it is not an MjiOssible journey, as one of your eorresfiondunts .would make believe, and I do not .think it ;cafi be fairly called returning to a IjSattufftl diet, as we have no certain knowledge, and no reason to think, that any 4f oar progenitors have ever known more ‘than is known now. It only requires a •light knowledge of comparative anatomy •to convince any unprejudiced thinkinc person that, flesh is not our natural food,, ah jthough there are many who claim kindred (With the omnivorous pig. It is doubtful H swine are omniyerous by nature, alithbugh they'are not very particular. I baye a strong impression that man is 3 high|r clliss of anitoal than swine, and we 'Know that hone of the higher class of nhilhSls are 1 either omniverous or carniverbui. The habit of flesh-eating has undoubtheeh acquired by our barbarian nroigehitorSj nio'st likely during the Glacial ’Period,- tyheh naturil food was not very iplejitiful. Persistence in acquired habits .(inherited or otherwise) is the cause of disease, premature death, drunkenness, icrime and misery, Is it hot worth while (to practice a little self-denial, to. get fid ■ G f nil disease, so life would be a routine of iCnjoyment from the cradle' to the grave ;to everyone? We are to blame that it is not.

I There is some truth in the letters ■ over the jtignatures, “Is Man Fmgivorous,” but jtriithS told in a way that conveys a false impression are worse than falsehoods. True, 'j? vegetarians were to live principally on bread and starchy food they would be no writer off than flesh-eaters; but what au--Wy ias for assuming that they do? Us .Nature so parsimonious that we ’ have pithing bat- stareh of animals to eat? Arid Ais assertion that they are nervous weakerroneous. If he knows any vege■Wnans that are such, I can assure him that ,want of flesh-meat is not the cause.—l am, W. L. DUNCAN. TO THE EDITOR. ‘ _ of ■h-espasairi.g on your valua,plfc ajiace alone prevented me from reply--11^ 8 fully t 0 y° lu ‘ correspondent “Is Fiugiyorous,'’ but as a more complete has been called for, I trust that you ■ m 7 I* 4 ®? 016 a few.lines in which to make Dis position (nearer. Your correspondent, P®** s argument, chiefly upon tbs belief that much starch fßod entiilstoo .arraeh labour on the nervous system, and is ,1-ejipdfisihle for the ossification of the artoiies. This may be perfectly true, but of coarse, the value of the assertion wilTde{fend Upon,how much starch food is eoniidered sufficient, and the application of 'the theory to Vegetarians will entirely depend upon the quantity of that article which ■they individually consume, j- The fallacy of your correspondent lies in ’assuming that a too starchy diet is the onSly alternative to one in which the flesh of jaxrimaliS largely enters, and that consequentlly Vegetarians necessarily suffer from the i diseases induced by it. I pointed out in my {previous letter that intelligent Vegetarians Jar® careful to strike the happy medium with j/egard to what they eat, and I may state I that, 4s ai rule, they find it extremely easy (arid pleasant to subsist upon their natural Idiet, viz., fruits, seeds, nuts, and faririacious j Vegetables and this diet while it gives the | various organs of, the body just sufficient '.bxetcisato keep them in good work.ng con(dition, does not overtax them, but, on the iether hand, enables all the various parts Jfo work in harmony With .each other, with If he result of good’health and good spirits, i. I aril inclined to agree v with , Man Fmgivorous ” when he isa.ysq ho .believes man was not ori- [ gin Ally a drinking animal, and would like point out that under a Vegetarian diet I man’s desire for drink of all kinds invariam. 'diminishes to an appreciable extent. I .'iSVd myself proved this. Here is a. sugdwiwri for oiu’ Temperance friends which would do well to' consider. , v “'tt Man Frugivorous” is entirely wrong ho says that man is nOvV mentally, arid

physically incapable of living entirely on Iks natural'food, for, as a matter of fact, thousands of people in various parts of the world, and, indeed, many in Christchurch, are enjoying the best possible health under that regime, many of whom were previously so organically diseased that life was a burden to them. For the information of your correspondent, I should like to state that for,a much longer period than twelve months I have subsisted, and to all intents entirely so, upon the diet which he predicts would ensure my speedy demise, and, instead of failing health, each succeeding day brings, if possible, better health and more enjoyment than the day before. '“ls Man Frugivorous” is also wrong in assuming that our bodies are built up by decomposition, which is only a part truth, and 'a fdiahge from our present mode is perfectly safe, and, indeed, advisable, provided, of course, that it be not done without due consideration for the laws of living. In most cases a gradual elimination of animal food would be preferable to a sudden departure therefrom; thus, while the eating of flesh meat might, with advantage, be left off at once, iMvould not he wise to abandon the iisa of eggs, butter, milk, etc., without delay. —I am, etc., HARD NUT.